reactions and processes volume 2 part a handbook of environmental chemistry

Start: 16/03/2022 - 03:43
Stop: 09/08/2022 - 03:43

reactions and processes volume 2 part a handbook of environmental chemistry
LINK 1 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF
LINK 2 ENTER SITE >>> Download PDF

File Name:reactions and processes volume 2 part a handbook of environmental chemistry.pdf
Size: 2799 KB
Type: PDF, ePub, eBook
Category: Book
Uploaded: 16 May 2019, 18:20 PM
Rating: 4.6/5 from 585 votes.


Last checked: 11 Minutes ago!

In order to read or download reactions and processes volume 2 part a handbook of environmental chemistry ebook, you need to create a FREE account.

Download Now!

eBook includes PDF, ePub and Kindle version

✔ Register a free 1 month Trial Account.
✔ Download as many books as you like (Personal use)
✔ Cancel the membership at any time if not satisfied.
✔ Join Over 80000 Happy Readers

reactions and processes volume 2 part a handbook of environmental chemistry

By continuing to use this website, you are agreeing to the new Privacy Policy and any updated website Terms. By continuing to use this website, you agree to the placement of these cookies and to similar technologies as described in our Privacy Policy. Do you accept the terms? Our library is the biggest of these that have literally hundreds of thousands of different products represented. I get my most wanted eBook Many thanks If there is a survey it only takes 5 minutes, try any survey which works for you. And by having access to our ebooks online or by storing it on your computer, you have convenient answers with Fasb 57 User Guide. To get started finding Fasb 57 User Guide, you are right to find our website which has a comprehensive collection of manuals listed. Our library is the biggest of these that have literally hundreds of thousands of different products represented. I get my most wanted eBook Many thanks If there is a survey it only takes 5 minutes, try any survey which works for you. Our library is the biggest of these that have literally hundreds of thousands of different products represented. I get my most wanted eBook Many thanks If there is a survey it only takes 5 minutes, try any survey which works for you. Creer un compte They agreed in principle to make their standards fully compatible with a best efforts approach by both Boards. Since the initial agreement, both Boards have engaged in numerous collaborations in order to achieve the end result of convergence in financial reporting standards. Six months later, after the SEC released its final staff report not in support of convergence as envisioned by the IASB, Chairman Hoogervorst pushed back and urged the U.S. to get on board with IFRS. He stated, “We are at a pivotal moment for our organisation. The IASB has started working on a new agenda. The era of convergence is coming to an end.

  • reactions and processes volume 2 part a handbook of environmental chemistry.

We are revamping our institutional infrastructure to provide for a more inclusive approach to international standard setting”. Hoogervorst’s statement seemed to imply that the U.S. could lose its influence over IFRS if it continues to resist supporting a transition to IFRS from U.S. GAAP, Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (Cohn, 2012). Accounting is widely accepted as the language of business. The resulting financial reports provide stakeholders necessary information of the organization to include profitability, financial position, and related cash flows. Accordingly, there has been a push towards more uniform global accounting rules and financial reporting standards as more organizations and stakeholders join the global economy. Regardless of the geographical location of the firm, the goal of the standard setters is to provide a uniform reporting standard in order to achieve more comparative financial reports. While on the surface this may seem to be a plausible goal, the ultimate realization may not be easily attained. We next provide a brief background of the FASB and IASB and review the convergence history discussing some salient differences resulting in divergence. We introduce tetranormalization (four types of standards that managers negotiate) in light of positivist- versus ontologic-pragmatism where intelligent action may lead to more effective collaboration; however, integration of constituency input may not be complete resulting in disagreement. Finally, we conclude with the need for such intervention as the future global economy will continue to include more constituents adding their voice to the on-going and ever-changing accounting standard setting process. We now turn to the pragmatic theory of intelligent action. The storytelling methodology can provide insightful understanding of the process of sensemaking that integrates retrospective with prospective processes.

Rosile, Boje, Carlon, Downs, and Saylors (2013) published a recent article on how storytelling methods vary by discipline and by type of storytelling: narrative, story, or antenarrative. We theorize that pragmatic storytelling varies between principles-based IASB and rules-based FASB accounting approaches. The pragmatic ways of formulating accounting standards and the related storytelling methodologies differ. Nations draw upon different pragmatic assumptions, which may affect practices differently. The overview of storytelling appears in the diagram below. We will first provide a brief history and overview of four pragmatist standpoints: Epistemic, Positivist, Ontologic, and Critical (hereafter referred to as EPOC) as seen in Figure 1. Figure 1 EPOC Pragmatist Storytelling Theory (adapted from Boje, 2013) EPOC Pragmatist Storytelling Theory (adapted from Boje, 2013) Brief history of American Pragmatism 6 Charles-Sanders Peirce’s (1877-8, 1878) late 1880s work in developing a neo-Kantian pragmatist made its most epistemic formulations in 1905 and 1906, when Peirce responded to lectures by William James (1907) that were published later in book form. Initially John Dewey took up an epistemic standpoint, but after reading Werner Heisenberg’s (1927) Principle of Indeterminacy with its observer effects, Dewey (1929) moved to an ontologic-pragmatist standpoint. Critical-pragmatism can be seen in the work of Kenneth Burke (1939), in particular his critique of Hitler’s violent rhetoric, and his predictions that fascism would erupt into violent action. We assume accounting praxis in different countries may have commensurate pragmatic ways of approaching standards. For example, a rules-based system takes a more positivistic (empiric spectator) observer approach, whereas a principles-based spectator system is more related to epistemic-pragmatism (general or universal principles that extend from ideas and concepts).

The point is both rely on spectator detachment, rather than the kind of indeterminacy principle and observer effect Dewey (1929) developed in ontologic-pragmatism. Linear- and cyclic-antenarrative processes are theorized to connect epistemic and positivist-pragmatists, particular in narratives of the past. Spiral-antenarrative processes are theorized to relate epistemic and ontologic-pragmatism, while more rhizomatic-antenarrative processes are theorized to bridge positivist and critical-pragmatism. We hold out the possibility that there are non-linear antenarrative possibilities for addressing a history of FASB and IASB attempts to converge differences in accounting standards. This brings us to tetranormalization theory and methods. It is what we call’antenarrative’ a bet on the future, and something that is before narrative has stabilized. We suggest that antenarrative approaches that offer linear or cyclic (stage by stage) predictions of the future are not suited to the task at hand. An alternative is to look at spirals (where small beginnings have cumulative effects) and rhizomes (networks that develop every which way).” It remains to be seen if non-linear processes can be proposed and implemented that can assist with the current stalemate. Rather than dealing only with principles-based and rules-based differences, the strategy could be to address the ontologic-pragmatics of the standards, in particular situations. This could mean a cumulative integrating resulting from addressing intelligent action. He says the question is not just empirical, but rather the accounting standard process has its value in existence (ontologically). In the orthodox tradition, the epistemic (values) are treated as separate from positivist (empiric) concerns. The development of standards has become habitual iterative methods reached in the U.S. and in some European nations.

It becomes complicated when habitual standards of habitual methods of one nation meet up with standards that are the basis of a method for dealing with a reality of Being independently of those operations (ibid). In other words, there is not a defect in the accounting standards process, rather the element of indeterminacy is not variance isolated from the act of observation itself. The ontology of existence is not isolated from accounting standards praxis. In a “spectator theory of knowledge” one only needs to be concerned with the accounting standard setting procedures as the setting of antecedents to govern the process of knowing (p. 163). Under quantum principle of indeterminacy and observer effect, the accountant is no longer a detached spectator whose act of observation has no effect, rather “the act of observation, necessary in existential knowing, modifies that preexistent something” (p. 163). Standards are not antecedently fixed in existence. Rather the act of observation is a part of the anteriority. Dewey’s point about anteriority is that the act of observing is not divorced from the world out there; rather the implication is our accounting transactions have an effect in the world, in its anteriority. Blind action is reacting to antecedent conditions of a situation. Intelligent action is defined here as embodied reflective awareness of the ebb and flow (rhythm) of an unfolding situation, as the basis of predicting a possible future course of action. We turn now to the background on the quest to integrate standards. Background of the FASB 14 Prior to the 1930s, the United States did not have laws or regulations that required companies to provide audited financial statements. After the U.S. stock market crashed in 1929, the U.S. Congress tried to boost investor confidence with the passage of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934. The Acts were designed to regulate financial reporting. In so doing, they created the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The SEC has influenced the development of GAAP ever since. The SEC took a somewhat active role in the formulation, and the revision of accounting principles until the end of 1945. After 1945, the Commission, at the urging of the accounting profession, generally permitted the private sector to undertake the formulation and dissemination of accounting principles (Pines, 1965). In the late 1930’s, The SEC wanted the private sector to provide the Commission with “substantial authoritative support” for sound accounting practices. During its tenure, the CAP issued 51 Accounting Research Bulletins on a variety of accounting topics; however, CAP Bulletins were only recommendations and were not binding on the membership of the Institute. The CAP was criticized for its inability to secure agreement on difficult topics. In response, the AICPA formed a Special Committee. The efforts of the Special Committee paved the way for the establishment of the Accounting Principles Board (APB). The objectives of the APB were: (1) to advance the written expression of what constitutes generally accepted accounting principles, (2) to determine appropriate practice and to narrow the areas of difference in practice, and (3) to lead in the thinking on unsettled and controversial issues. When the APB was formed, the Chairman of the SEC urged the new Board to make the difficult decisions to narrow the areas of difference and inconsistency in practice. The APB was still in its infancy and was not prepared for the political turmoil that was about to result from the new tax legislation. In addition, the 1960s was also a period that involved scandals and lawsuits. The APB’s response was to close loopholes in order to reduce misleading financial reporting. However, the result was increasingly long, complex, and legalistic Opinions. These precise rules made it possible for companies and auditors to observe the letter of the rule but avoid the spirit (Burton, 1971).

The 1960s also evidenced growing concerns about the independence of auditors and the related audit opinions rendered because of consulting services and “opinion shopping” to arrive at the desired accounting with an unqualified opinion (Zeff, 2003). In response to increasing criticism, the AICPA commissioned two major studies. One dealt with the process for the establishment of accounting principles. It was chaired by former SEC Commissioner Francis M. Wheat (“Wheat Study”).In fact, the FASB is funded by the trustees of the Financial Accounting Standards Advisory Council, which generally oversees the activities of the FASB. Members of the FASB are drawn from representatives of the AICPA, the Financial Executives Institute, the National Association of Accountants, the Financial Analysts Federation, and the American Accounting Association. The FASB initially had seven full-time, paid members versus eighteen part-time, voluntary members of the APB. FASB members are required to sever all ties to previous firms and institutions to ensure impartiality and independence. All FASB members are selected by the FAF. The FASB is an independent body, not a committee of the AICPA. In sum, many of the problems faced by the CAP and the APB were mitigated. In addition, the FASB issues staff positions (initially Technical Bulletins), in order to communicate the views of its staff on implementation issues. Staff positions are issued with limited due process. In the early seventies, the FASB initiated its Conceptual Framework, a project to develop a sound theoretical basis for the development of accounting standards in the United States. Concepts Statements are non-mandatory and are intended to provide theoretical guidance. The EITF was designed to minimize the need for the FASB to spend time and effort addressing narrow implementation, application, or other emerging issues that can be analyzed within existing GAAP.

Task Force members are drawn from a cross section of the FASB’s constituencies, including auditors, preparers, and users of financial statements. The SEC is involved as the chief accountant or the deputy chief accountant of the Securities and Exchange Commission attends Task Force meetings regularly as an observer with the privilege of the floor. The SEC’s chief accountant generally has accepted EITF consensus positions as authoritative support. Similar floor privilege is also granted to the chairman of the Financial Reporting Executive Committee (FinRec) of the AICPA, and to a designate of the IASB. In addition, the number of industries and the related increase in technical issues has also added to the complexity in setting accounting standards. The SEC has increasingly been involved throughout the development of accounting standards. Its influence has both shaped standards as well as the standard setting process resulting in authoritative legitimacy of the FASB. This may be effective in developing U.S. GAAP but such influence may not be applicable in international venues and may even undermine the collaboration efforts of the FASB and the IASB. Some were more rules-based and others more principles-based. The United States developed rules-based GAAP, while in Europe principles-based IFRS eventually prevailed. Accounting standard setting in the United States has been and will continue to be a political process. Politics occurs between individual Board members and groups of Board members. In addition, accounting Boards face a number of externalities such as changes in technology and markets, pressure from company executives and industry groups, and changes in the tax and security laws. Background of the IASB 24 The current standard setting body in Europe is the International Accounting Standards Board (IASB). In 2001, the IASB replaced its predecessor body, the International Accounting Standards Committee (IASC).

After World War II, every country had its own set of national accounting standards. In several countries, tax laws mandated that companies declare dividends based on reported net income. This created an incentive for management to establish secret reserves by overstating expenses. During this period, disclosures were lacking. The combination of weak disclosures along with national accounting differences made it difficult to compare the financial statements of cross-border companies (Zeff, 2012). In the early 1970s, the IASC was established via an agreement reached by the accountancy bodies from a group of nine major, developed countries. The IASC’s objective was to issue “basic” standards, known as International Accounting Standards (IAS). The hope was that the IAS would lead to a worldwide harmonization of accounting standards and a reduction in the number of possible accounting choices. Harmonization meant the development of standards that could serve as a guide for national standards setters. Board meetings were conducted in English. Consequently, some Board members had to discuss technical accounting issues in a second language. Each delegation had one vote and a three-quarters majority was required to approve exposure drafts and final standards. The votes on exposure drafts and standards were not reported and dissenting views on final standards were not published. The IASC’s interpretative body was the Standing Interpretations Committee (SIC). The idea was to develop broad, principles-based standards so that they would not conflict with national standards. Unfortunately, the IASs were somewhat ad hoc, primarily because it took almost twenty years for the IASC to develop a conceptual framework (Pacter, 2005). Noteworthy, the IASC invited both the FASB and the European Commission (EC) to send a non-voting guest to Board meetings. As a result, the FASB and the EC accepted the invitation and began to take an active interest in the work of the IASC.

While these papers were insightful, they were not authoritative. In the United States, the SEC was closely following the activities of the IASC. In a press release dated April 11, 1996, the SEC said that “three key elements” needed to be reflected in IASC standards in order to obtain the SEC’s acceptance: (1) the standards must include a core set of accounting pronouncements that constitutes a comprehensive, generally accepted basis of accounting; (2) the standards must be of high quality—they must result in comparability and transparency; and they must provide for full disclosure; and (3) the standards must be rigorously interpreted and applied.The SEC felt that high quality accounting standards must also be supported by an infrastructure that ensures that the standards are rigorously interpreted and applied. The elements in that infrastructure included the following: (1) effective, independent, and high quality accounting and auditing standard setters, (2) high quality auditing standards, (3) audit firms with effective quality controls worldwide, (4) profession-wide quality assurance, and (5) active regulatory oversight. IOSCO’s endorsement added creditability to the IASC as a standard setter.This concern was addressed by the creation of two groups. First, a private-sector body, the European Financial Reporting Advisory Group (EFRAG), was established to provide feedback to the EU (and the IASC) about the acceptability of a proposed accounting regulation. Second, the European Commission created the Accounting Regulatory Committee (ARC), composed of representatives from all of the member state governments. After the Commission receives favorable advice at the technical level from the EFRAG, it submits the proposed standard or interpretation to the ARC for advice on its “political” acceptability.

The ARC provides a vehicle where users can express their concerns that a standard or interpretation, if endorsed, would be excessively costly to implement or would create adverse consequences for a national economy (Zeff, 2012). Two possibilities arose for IASC restructuring: (1) the independent expert model, and (2) the representational model. The former approach emphasizes independence and technical expertise with a small number of mostly full-time Board members. The latter approach focuses on the key constituents and broad consensus, with a larger number of mostly part-time Board members. Those supporting the first approach won the battle, but may have lost the war (McGregor, 2012). This is extremely important given the underlying representation of constituents necessary in the standard setting process in order to achieve acceptance. In sum, the more inclusive and participative representational model should have been initially adopted. Trustees of the IASB’s oversight body, the IFRS Foundation, were drawn from diverse geographic and functional backgrounds. Trustees were to (1) raise funds; (2) appoint the members of the Board, an interpretations committee, and a standards advisory council; and (3) monitor the Board’s effectiveness. The IASB made it clear that it was not interested in developing standards that contained detailed rules nor was it interested in having an interpretations body issue numerous interpretations of its standards. Accountants would be expected to exercise judgment in applying broad principles and would be able to rely on few formal interpretations (McGregor, 2012). However, when a country or region embeds IFRS into its laws, it foregoes some its sovereignty, and politics emerges. This is not exactly the same as IFRS as adopted by the IASB. For instance, IAS 41 requires an unconditional government grant related to a biological asset to be recognized as income when the grant becomes receivable.

During the first review, in 2005, the trustees identified three areas of concern: (1) Board membership, (2) voting, and (3) due process. Some felt that the Board was too technical and too insistent about introducing fair value into the standards. In response, the criterion for Board membership was changed from “technical expertise” to “professional competence and practical experience.” Next, trustees felt that the voting requirement should be changed from a simple majority to nine out of fourteen members. The last area reviewed was the Board’s due process. The original due process contained a limited number of mandatory steps, such as issuance of an exposure draft and a number of non-mandatory steps such as the issuance of a discussion paper on major projects, public hearings, and field tests. In addition, the trustees formed a due process oversight committee to monitor the Board’s adherence to the new due process procedures. In sum, there is a standard setting process that has developed over time. Similar to the standard setting process of the FASB, the IASB carefully considers stakeholder feedback and the need for transparency in developing sound accounting principles. Interestingly, the SEC has increased its involvement and influence with the IASB. Webster’s dictionary defines the verb harmonize as “to bring into consonance or accord” and the verb converge as “to come together and unite in a common interest or focus”. While subsequent progress was made, there have been set backs. In fact, the two Boards were supposed to have completed their major convergence projects by June 30, 2010, just in time for the retirement of the IASB’s decade-long chairman Sir David Tweedie. He and FASB chairman Robert Herz had agreed in 2009 to redouble their efforts to achieve convergence in order to meet that deadline, which was set at a G-20 summit (Cohn, 2012).

Despite the efforts by Leslie Seidman, Chairman of the FASB, and Hans Hoogervorst, Chairman of the IASB, potholes are ever present on the road to convergence. And, while both the FASB and IASB may envision the uniform standards destination, the potholes encountered along the migration road could undermine the entire process. We will next provide a summary of key developments in the convergence process followed by an illustration of an early collaboration effort for revenue recognition. Both Boards agreed to provide resources for collaboration efforts to include sharing related staff resources. The objectives of the joint project were as follows: Remove inconsistencies and weaknesses in existing revenue requirements. Provide a more robust framework for addressing revenue issues. Improve comparability of revenue recognition practices across entities, industries, jurisdictions, and capital markets. Provide more useful information to users of financial statements through improved disclosure requirements. Simplify the preparation of financial statements by reducing the number of requirements to which an entity must refer (FASB, 2012). Using a “top-down” approach, staff members developed conceptual guidance for the recognition and measurement of revenues. The aim of this approach was to establish the conceptual “backbone” of the new standard. Using a “bottom-up” approach, staff members analyzed the existing authoritative guidance of both the FASB and IASB regarding revenue recognition principles and practices. The objective of this approach was to identify which principles were “working” and, therefore, should be retained in the new standard (Gallistel, et al., 2012). Interestingly, the “bottom-up” approach initially seemed to exclude the respective constituents of both the FASB and the IASB.

Perhaps this was due to the participative process of the Boards in developing accounting standards; however, constituent comments and concerns are typically introduced after a proposal is exposed rather than at inception. While a participative and transparent process is clearly important, were all the concerns and related feedback included in arriving at a final document that was essentially unchanged. A binary “in favor” versus “opposed” may not elucidate the underlying rationale for the opinions provided. Further, understanding the reasoning of constituents to include their respective social structures and environments is important in developing standards. Both entered the project with two main criteria for revenue recognition; however, this is where the similarities cease. The IASB’s asset-liability approach recognizes revenue when there is a change in a firm’s assets or liabilities related to the transaction. The FASB on the other hand entered the convergence project with a completion of the earnings process approach where revenue is recognized when the earnings process is complete or virtually complete (Gallistel, et al., 2012). Since substantial progress has been made to date in the area of convergence on revenue recognition, to the point where final approval is all but assured, further recommendation for convergence will be predicated on the assumption that the proposed standard will be adopted. Thus, recommendations will be made on how to make the new standard more useable to both IASB and FASB constituents and financial statement users (Gallistel, et al., 2012). Moreover, even where there is convergence, differences still remain. For example, in business combinations control is defined differently. The FASB follows a two-tier consolidation model. The first tier focuses on voting control or the percentage of voting shares.

If an entity directly or indirectly has a controlling financial interest in the other entities, consolidation is normally necessary for a fair presentation. The usual condition for a controlling financial interest is ownership of a majority voting interest; however, a controlling financial interest may be achieved through arrangements that do not involve voting interests. The second tier is concerned with a qualitative analysis of power over significant activities and exposure to significant losses or benefits. All investees are first evaluated to determine if the investor is the primary beneficiary of a variable interest entity (VIE). Moreover, an entity may not issue voting or similar interests, or the total equity investment at risk is not sufficient to permit the legal entity to finance its activities without additional subordinated financial support. In such cases, that entity’s activities may be predetermined or its decision making ability may be determined contractually. All entities are evaluated to determine whether they are variable interest entities (VIEs). VIEs are consolidated whereas non-VIEs are assessed on the basis of voting and other decision making rights.Many key developments included in Table 1 show SEC involvement from the start. The SEC has perhaps exercised more influence over both Boards than any other constituent. The influence of the SEC and thus the US may underlie convergence problems. Legitimate bilateral agreements cannot result when one party is dominant enforcing its will. According to McGregor (2012), the US has been and continues to be the biggest fish to be hooked in the quest for global standards and the SEC is the dominant constituent. Recently, the SEC issued its final report that did not support convergence as envisioned by the IASB. Both the FASB and the IASB remain committed the convergence of standards; however, the SEC believes the U.S. should assume the dominant position. We will next briefly discuss the SEC position.